What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (10 Viewers)

To be fair, you’ve been pro-impeachment the entire time.  And I wonder how receptive you are to considering a good defense.  And ultimately I question how open I am to considering something a good prosecution.  

But I never heard anything that I thought “Oh no, he did do it,” until the Bolton points.
Not even when mulvaney said “yeah, we did it, we do it all the time, get over it?”

 
Gotcha. Well anyhow it’s all theoretical because he won’t be under investigation. It’s all talk from what I can see. Ask any Trump supporter or Republican politician why should Joe Biden be investigated and all you get is this question in response: “Why was Hunter on the board of Burisma?” That’s all they have apparently. 
Hypocrisy is dead.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes....because I believe many will see through it.  IT will only be pandering to those already on board with them.
I'd like to be proven wrong, but I think there are plenty of people looking once again for a reason to vote for the lesser of two evils (i.e. Trump).   For that they need to seed (and cultivate  the "evil" narrative and let the press find "experts" to let it spread like weeds.    

 
To be fair, you’ve been pro-impeachment the entire time.  And I wonder how receptive you are to considering a good defense.  And ultimately I question how open I am to considering something a good prosecution.  

But I never heard anything that I thought “Oh no, he did do it,” until the Bolton points.
Ive been pro since learning of what he was accused of and finding it quite credible based in who and how many were willing to testify.

Id consider a good defense if someone actually refuted the claims.  But nobody has other than someone who os a compulsive liar and refuses yo testify under oath or allow others to do so.

 
I think we’re gonna at least see Bolton testify now. But I also think we will see Hunter and Joe Biden to try and distract from the bombshell.

 
Don't get why the POTUS wouldn't want Bolton under oath perjuring himself in front of the Senate.  That would effectively eliminate another of his "enemies'.  IMO, shortsighted of the POTUS to grant a "stay of execution" to a man so willing to stab him in the back.  Much like in Game of Thrones....it would be prudent for the "King" to eliminate the Boltons ASAP. 

 
I think we’re gonna at least see Bolton testify now. But I also think we will see Hunter and Joe Biden to try and distract from the bombshell.
I'll believe it when I see it.  It's going to be either "Bolton's a liar" or "Meh...he did it, but it's not impeachable".  Prior to the NYT piece, they only had the latter card to play.  Now they have two.

 
Adam Schiff on CNN on the Bolton news:

"I don't know how you can explain that you wanted a search for the truth in this trial and say you don't want to hear from a witness who had a direct conversation about the central allegation in the articles of impeachment."

 
One other thing (and maybe it's been covered...if so, sorry!).  Did anyone else not understand the Graham comments about an investigation?  Is he not aware that Trump is on top of it or did he just slip up and show his real thoughts on the "Trump investigation" into the Bidens?  From the GOP talking point perspective, I am trying to understand why he feels another investigation needs to be opened with one already opened.  That doesn't make any sense.

 
I'll believe it when I see it.  It's going to be either "Bolton's a liar" or "Meh...he did it, but it's not impeachable".  Prior to the NYT piece, they only had the latter card to play.  Now they have two.
I don’t think it will make a difference in the long run but I do think there will be enough votes for Bolton. There’s reports out there that many of the GOP Senators feel blindsided because the White House knew about it and didn’t warn them. It only takes a couple of them to realize that he doesn’t have their backs for Bolton to be allowed to testify.

 
If they vote for Bolton to testify first there’s going to be a legal challenge of executive privilege from the White House. Unlike some people I do not believe that the Senate will allow Roberts to decide this. So I have no idea how long it will take: weeks? Months? 

After that is resolved he will he deposed privately. At which point there will be another vote about whether or not he will give public testimony. I remain skeptical that this will ever happen (though I hope I’m wrong.) 

 
I don’t think it will make a difference in the long run but I do think there will be enough votes for Bolton. There’s reports out there that many of the GOP Senators feel blindsided because the White House knew about it and didn’t warn them. It only takes a couple of them to realize that he doesn’t have their backs for Bolton to be allowed to testify.
If they don't realize this by now, I don't see how this latest news would do anything to move them :shrug:

I'm pretty confident that this will still end up as "meh, he did it, but it isn't impeachable" and we will work under the precedent that the President abusing his power is no big deal.

 
You can't be "blindsided" if you haven't opened your eyes for five months.

It's Kabuki Theater.  40% of the audience might pretend they don't know, but it's printed right there on the ticket. 
And then the discussion of it has to be Kabuki theater, because we have to pretend the people defending this at this state are rational actors arguing in good faith.  

 
Man, don't you hate it when you're a Republican Senator who feigns being undecided on the witnesses topic for PR reasons only, and then a first hand witness like Bolton publicly releases his testimony? So frustrating.

 
Geoff Bennett‏Verified account @GeoffRBennett 14m14 minutes ago

NEWS:

Romney says it’s “increasingly likely” that there will be enough Republicans to vote in support of calling John Bolton as a witness. He wouldn’t say specifically who.

https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1221811703987539975
Jon Ward

@jonward11

Just caught Sen Susan Collins on way into Capitol. She said she’s been working on having witnesses with Romney, Murkowski, and Lamar Alexander and that remains her hope. Asked about Bolton she just reiterated that she’s already been in favor of witnesses.

7:58 AM · Jan 27, 2020

https://mobile.twitter.com/jonward11/status/1221809808409538562

 
"Meh...he did it, but it's not impeachable".  
This. 

Alan Dershowitz is going to make this argument today or tomorrow. He’s going to sound all authoritative, and quote the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers, and the gist is going to be that even if all the charges are true it’s not an impeachable offense. 

Almost every other legal scholar out there disagrees with this point of view, considers it nonsense, but it won’t matter. It will be enough; it gives the GOP Senators what they need. On Thursday, following the question period, they will argue: “since this doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment anyhow why do we need to hear from Bolton or anybody else? Whatever they might say is irrelevant to this point.” And they will vote down witnesses. President Trump will be acquitted before the Super Bowl starts. 

Thats my prediction anyhow. As most folks around here know I’m not great with predictions so take it with a grain of salt. But that’s what I think is about to happen. 

 
Jon Ward

@jonward11

Just caught Sen Susan Collins on way into Capitol. She said she’s been working on having witnesses with Romney, Murkowski, and Lamar Alexander and that remains her hope. Asked about Bolton she just reiterated that she’s already been in favor of witnesses.

7:58 AM · Jan 27, 2020

https://mobile.twitter.com/jonward11/status/1221809808409538562
Man I’d love to be wrong again. I’m wrong so often in my predictions that I really don’t mind and this would be great. 

But I don’t think it will happen. 

 
If this comes true, I'll end up with tons of respect for Romney and Murkowski here.  They aren't at risk in November and aren't retiring -- they're just doing something because it's right.  Both of them could vote against witnesses and likely not suffer personally.

 
So the Bolton 'script was leaked by someone in the White House...

  1. Why did they leak it?
  2. How long before Trump goes after the leaker(s)?
 
If this comes true, I'll end up with tons of respect for Romney and Murkowski here.  They aren't at risk in November and aren't retiring -- they're just doing something because it's right.  Both of them could vote against witnesses and likely not suffer personally.
There’s no reason for not wanting fact witnesses in a trial. You don’t get points for making the right choice only after having your hand forced. 

 
So the Bolton 'script was leaked by someone in the White House...

  1. Why did they leak it?
  2. How long before Trump goes after the leaker(s)?
Supposedly it’s the NSC that has been reviewing the manuscript.

Bolton rules org charts, I’d rather imagine someone’s either pissed, on principle or from schadenfreude, or worried.

The guy never fails to go for the bait, immediately?

 
Man, don't you hate it when you're a Republican Senator who feigns being undecided on the witnesses topic for PR reasons only, and then a first hand witness like Bolton publicly releases his testimony? So frustrating.
Lucky for them this came out in time...at this point, the bigger worry for them is voting no...and then more and more coming out making them look even worse.

 
So the Bolton 'script was leaked by someone in the White House...

  1. Why did they leak it?
  2. How long before Trump goes after the leaker(s)?
Well of course...that will be the bigger thing to Trump...not the implications of the leak, just that the dirty leaker should be tried for Treason.

 
Donald J. Trump Retweeted

Dan Bongino

@dbongino

Regarding Bolton:

1) Nobody cares

2) The aid was delivered

3) The Ukrainians aren’t victims (just ask them)

4) The Democrats’ corruption in Ukraine is real

5) Nobody cares

This is what you get when you have no defense.

NO ONE CARES ABOUT IMPEACHMENT ANYWAY DERP DERP

 
Aside from creating a detailed record of the high crimes and misdemeanors being the right thing to do for the country, it's getting pretty hard to argue Impeachment was bad politically. 

It hasn't moved the needle at all so far, Republican Senators will have to go on the record, and there's 9+ months for more Parnas tapes, Bolton documentation (you know he's got the receipts) and other shoes to drop that might make the acquittal look like a terrible decision.  Conversely, there's no danger to the Democrats.  If there was it would have registered by now.  Also, Trump's guilty and any new evidence will support that.

 
If this comes true, I'll end up with tons of respect for Romney and Murkowski here.  They aren't at risk in November and aren't retiring -- they're just doing something because it's right.  Both of them could vote against witnesses and likely not suffer personally.
That's how I feel about Hill, Taylor, Yavonovitch, Holmes, Volker, Morrison, etc. 

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Ned
Lucky for them this came out in time...at this point, the bigger worry for them is voting no...and then more and more coming out making them look even worse.
Not really. JMHO. Nothing that could not be shirked with "Gosh, if only the House had subpoenaed him, or if only we knew what he actually knew when it mattered... ." The after the fact excuses are water under the bridge and very easy to navigate. The known, when it matters, is far more complicated.

 
If they vote for Bolton to testify first there’s going to be a legal challenge of executive privilege from the White House. Unlike some people I do not believe that the Senate will allow Roberts to decide this. So I have no idea how long it will take: weeks? Months? 
Minutes. If the Senate doesn’t want Roberts to decide it, then the Senate will decide it. So however long it takes for 100 people to vote...

 
One other thing (and maybe it's been covered...if so, sorry!).  Did anyone else not understand the Graham comments about an investigation?  Is he not aware that Trump is on top of it or did he just slip up and show his real thoughts on the "Trump investigation" into the Bidens?  From the GOP talking point perspective, I am trying to understand why he feels another investigation needs to be opened with one already opened.  That doesn't make any sense.
"We need to investigate the Bidens!" will drive more Republican voters to the polls than "We started an investigation but it's not going well for us."

(See also: "Build that wall!" vs "We've only built 3 miles of new wall!", or "Lock her up!" vs. "We couldn't find any chargeable crimes!")

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top